Has just concluded a fresh examination on the document, which runs to 2030, and says it must contain 28,370 properties.

Only three months ago, after Mr Clews had first announced the old figure was too small, it was increased to 27,300 by the three councils in the hope he would then nod it through.

Promoted stories

In reaching his fresh findings Mr Clews says he has taken into account the Government's directive to build more homes to cope with population growth, which has driven recent planning guidance.

All three councils now say work is underway to identify where the extra development could go.

Councillor Judy Pearce, who chairs the south Worcestershire Joint Advisory Panel, said: "We know many people will be unhappy at the level of housing the inspector has proposed, but the only way we can secure a locally-controlled future for south Worcestershire is to ensure that plan gets to the stage where it can be adopted as quickly as possible.

"Once adopted, the SWDP will give the three councils control over where new homes and businesses are built.

"Without it, we face a future where developers can try to build almost anywhere and our powers to resist their applications would be very limited."

Mr Clews has accepted that nearly 5,000 homes already built since 2006 will be included in the overall tally, minimising some of the development.

A further 3,785 properties either currently under construction or with planning permission since 2012 are also included.

Mr Clews stance on finding room for 5,000 new properties means the SWDP can only be agreed in 2015 at the earliest.

Reaction from around south Worcestershire

BATTLE lines are already being drawn across south Worcestershire on where the extra homes will go - amid fears treasured sites are now more vulnerable than ever.

That includes Worcester's Middle Battenhall Farm, which is not in the SWDP but is subject to a planning application by Miller Homes for 200 properties.

Nearby residents have been fighting tooth and nail to block the bid for the green fields, but if Worcester City Council refuses the developer could take it to appeal.

An inspector would then be tasked with either throwing it out, or overturning the decision on the grounds south Worcestershire needs more development.

Yesterday the city council said they hoped it would not come to that, but admitted it would be in the hands of an inspector.

Resident Peter Golds, 61, of Battenhall Road, said: "Nobody wants to lose that lovely patch of land under any circumstances.

"This is meant to be a democracy. The council have got to stay strong about it, they know it's treasured by local people, they've admitted it many times.

"If we need more homes that won't be the place for it, it never has been."

Worcester councillors are already lining up to say the city is "full", and insist the onus should be on Malvern and Wychavon.

The city is already taking 9,400 homes including plans for major urban extensions off Broomhall in south Worcester and next to Dines Green on the west side.

Malvern is only taking 5,000 and Wychavon 8,900.

Councillor Marc Bayliss sat on a guidance board which helped create the first SWDP draft.

When asked if it left sites like Middle Battenhall Farm vulnerable he said "yes", but added: "We have a five-year land supply so it should be refused, in my view.

"These 5,000 extra homes are needed across all of south Worcestershire - Worcester, to all interests and purposes is fully developed.

"There is already very little green space left in the city, I find it very difficult see where these new homes can go in Worcester."

Worcester MP Robin Walker said: "Worcester is already making a very big contribution and lots of brownfield sites are being developed for housing.

"Clearly it is going to be difficult and challenging for the councils, they have to work together in the interests of protecting the green spaces we all value.

"But I am disappointed and would much rather we could have stayed with what was in the original SWDP."

The cost of the SWDP has long since topped £500,000.

Timetable

THE next stage of the process will take place in the summer, possibly June, when all three district councils take formal votes on accepting a figure of 28,370.

By that time, a preferred list of sites will be presented to councillors so they can either accept or reject it.

A rejection would mean a further delay to find new alternatives, but a yes vote by all three would then lead to a public consultation so people can have their say on it.

Share article

The aim is to finish that consultation by the end of September, and Mr Clews will then hold the second stage of his examination to consider the sites himself.

That would pave the way for it to be formally adopted in 2015.

Promoted Stories

Comments (1)

Analysis: inspector orders south Worcestershire to find 5,000 more homes

bbb773 says...12:58pm Fri 4 Apr 14

The problem is not just finding appropriate land for housing but everything else that comes with it. If you wish for example to build 5000 new homes in a rural village like the one i live in because it has vast amounts of open space, what about the facilities needed to accommodate such a plan. New schools would have to be built, a supermarket, drs, dentists, food places, play areas, bus services, leisure facilities etc. My village certainly could not accommodate new homes being built,It is not feasible to build houses where there is 1 small village shop because it could not sustain the population. Also the problem isnt just that houses need to be built, it is the cost of the completed homes that is the issue. They are built alike vast concrete jungles where everything looks the same, the gardens are never big enough, they have no character, and cost about £250,000. SO hence they dont sell and sit empty like lots of other developments in say badsey or orchard place

The problem is not just finding appropriate land for housing but everything else that comes with it.
If you wish for example to build 5000 new homes in a rural village like the one i live in because it has vast amounts of open space, what about the facilities needed to accommodate such a plan.
New schools would have to be built, a supermarket, drs, dentists, food places, play areas, bus services, leisure facilities etc.
My village certainly could not accommodate new homes being built,It is not feasible to build houses where there is 1 small village shop because it could not sustain the population.
Also the problem isnt just that houses need to be built, it is the cost of the completed homes that is the issue.
They are built alike vast concrete jungles where everything looks the same, the gardens are never big enough, they have no character, and cost about £250,000. SO hence they dont sell and sit empty like lots of other developments in say badsey or orchard placebbb773

The problem is not just finding appropriate land for housing but everything else that comes with it. If you wish for example to build 5000 new homes in a rural village like the one i live in because it has vast amounts of open space, what about the facilities needed to accommodate such a plan. New schools would have to be built, a supermarket, drs, dentists, food places, play areas, bus services, leisure facilities etc. My village certainly could not accommodate new homes being built,It is not feasible to build houses where there is 1 small village shop because it could not sustain the population. Also the problem isnt just that houses need to be built, it is the cost of the completed homes that is the issue. They are built alike vast concrete jungles where everything looks the same, the gardens are never big enough, they have no character, and cost about £250,000. SO hence they dont sell and sit empty like lots of other developments in say badsey or orchard place

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here